After some google searches I couldn't find Jason's statement on why monks get to use their neck slot instead of a weapon slot.
... except the AoMF cost has already been errata'd, it's not x2 any more. And Jason's already explained his reasoning for that. But go on.
I though the errata only dropped the cost from 2.5x to 2x?
Well, technically slightly less than 2.5/2, because weapons have the cost of a masterwork weapon. Though that extra 300 gold fades into relative insignificance pretty fast.
The AoMF used to be 2.5x the cost, it was errata'd to 2x the cost.
Monks have only one unarmed strike which they are forced to attack with under the same rules that apply to manufactured weapons. If they got to make natural attacks counting each limb as a separate weapon they'd actually be doing pretty darn well and would be getting a great bargain from the AoMF just as many druids and other natural attack builds do.
I'd argue that the Monk shouldn't have to give up any item slot other than the Weapon slot, just like every other class.
Agreed, if a necklace makes your toes magical then why not something wrapped around your hands? Heck make it slotless.
Before diving into this I'd like to point out that Quinggong Monks can get Barkskin as an SLA - it really helps lessen the impact of not being able to use Amulets of Natural Armor. It also frees up some of the funds they didn't spend on natural armor for other things.
The AoMF is now priced as though you are buying two weapons with the same enhancement bonus, which kind of makes sense since that's the same amount of money that any other TWFer has to put towards magic weaponry.
The Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes is an interesting approach to the "enchanting unarmed strikes is EXPENSIVE" problem - it's cheaper (by 50%) than the AoMF, but it only enchants one unarmed strike each round and scales up with BAB. Unfortunately, monks are making two strikes at level 1 and their attacks scale up faster than the Bodywrap, so it doesn't help cover all their attacks. The body slot also conflicts with the Monk's Robe, which is very popular for mid-high level monks. That said, it is a good option for someone who wants to TWF with a weapon and an unarmed strike, and (with the spirit of the AoMF change) I believe it could probably be priced on the same level as other magic weapons.
On a personal note, I homebrewed some rules to make TWF less expensive and more attractive compared to THF. By "linking" two weapons, they can both be enchanted at 1.5 the cost of a single weapon (so two +1 shortswords would cost 3000 gp), but the enhancement is only active when both are wielded. As a nice side-effect, this also makes disarming a slightly more viable combat style.
For what it's worth I actually agreed with the knuckle change because my personal idea of monks isn't really that they're all toting brass knuckles west side story-style. Cestus and knuckles were so much better than the alternatives that not using them was painful. Instead I changed the AoMF to be priced and enchanted as a normal weapon using similar language to the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes, but increased the number of attacks to work with the flurry/TWFing progression. I also made a new item called "Amulet of Natural Attacks" that specifically enhances all the target's natural attacks, but that follows the old price model of the AoMF.
IE in my home games monks can enchant and use their unarmed strike as a normal weapon, while a kraken-type eidolon or animal companion with 12 natural attacks would have to pay through the nose for an amulet that enchants all those tentacle whips. So far I haven't had any issues with it.
You probably haven't read the other thread, then, because that 11-year-old does play Society, and that was the problem.
Aha! No, I haven't read that thread.
So the issue there is "I have a book printed in 2010 (APG 2nd printing), and a book printed in 2013 (UE), and the brass knuckles rules text in them doesn't agree"?
(And to clarify my comment upthread: Yeah, I meant to say "AOMF is has been errata'd so it's no longer x2.5, it's only x2." Sorry for the confusion, it was late, I probably meant "errata'd to x2.")
|
The girl bought the APG, and IIRC doesn't have UE, and was told at a Con her Brass Knuckles don't work the way her book says they do, and her father came to the boards and was upset (or something along those lines, I've only skimmed the thread).
EDIT: HERE is the thread. I actually posted several comments in there, but they were replies to other ppl and topics.
EDIT EDIT: 13-year-old girl, as I reread the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You probably haven't read the other thread, then, because that 11-year-old does play Society, and that was the problem.Aha! No, I haven't read that thread.
So the issue there is "I have a book printed in 2010 (APG 2nd printing), and a book printed in 2013 (UE), and the brass knuckles rules text in them doesn't agree"?
(And to clarify my comment upthread: Yeah, I meant to say "AOMF is has been errata'd so it's no longer x2.5, it's only x2." Sorry for the confusion, it was late, I probably meant "errata'd to x2.")
It wasn't quite that simple. Nosig's daughter was given a physical APG and she in turn decided she also wanted a PDF so she bought one. It is not entirely clear if as a family they have UE or not, however it is clear that the daughter does not.
Nosig, a regular and long time poster, stumbled across the thread discussing this issue. Even though he has been around since before 2010 he had never seen this information nor been aware of the change. This is entirely understandable. If someone skips the rules forum and either doesn't own or didn't read that specific entry in the UE, then they would have no way to know nor reason to suspect this had changed.
He was not happy. Both for his own reasons and because he felt it necessary to break this information to his daughter. Not because it will effect her current build (it won't) but because her (reasonable) expectation of being able to use anything in the book as written is incorrect.
The concern is not isolated to this issue. The deeper concern of Nosig is that "what else have I missed? What else is printed in a current book but got a stealth errata and I wouldn't know unless I read each and every book cover to cover to be sure?" It is a frustrating concept and part of that frustration will involve breaking this information to his daughter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so the issue is "I have a book printed in 2010 (APG 2nd printing), but now someone tells me there's a 2013 book (UE) with an updated brass knuckles rules text, and nobody told me my book is out of date."
Yes, that is a valid complaint, and it should be addressed in the FAQ (pending errata).
And PFS leadership can make a ruling on it for PFS if they need a faster response. Mike and John probably didn't know there's a discrepancy between the two books.
I absolutely love that episode.
That is because you have excellent taste. :) It is probably my 5th favorite TNG episode behind Best of Both Worlds parts 1&2, The Drumhead, and Chain of Command part 2.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's especially ironic (to me, at least) is the timeline goes like this:
* At the time Adventurer's Armory and the APG were being developed, I was the developer on the Player Companions line, and the sole developer of the AA
* back then, Jason was the only person on the design "team"
* the original brass knuckles that appeared the Adventurer's Armory didn't explicitly say whether a monk got his special unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles
* AA went to print
* Paizo needed additional equipment content for the APG, and decided to pick up a bunch of stuff from the AA
* the brass knuckles were one of the items they picked up for the APG
* AA lands in the hands of customers
* customers with AA started asking whether a monk could use his better unarmed damage with BK
* I said in this post, "Monks use their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles" (Edit: link corrected)
* someone (I honestly don't know who, could have been me, could have been someone else) made changes to the BK text for the APG, clarifying that "[monks] can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with [brass knuckles]"
* the APG went to print
* Jason and I had a discussion about BK in the AA; I'm sure that discussion included Jason being concerned about how monk unarmed strikes could kicks or elbows or whatever, and allowing monks to use BK with their increased monk damage, even when the attack might be from a body part other than the hands would be really strange (obviously this is long before the 2013 errata allowing monks to flurry with one body part instead of multiple ones)
* in that discussion, Jason either convinced me we shouldn't allow monks to get their increased unarmed damage with BK, or he decided that's how he wanted it to work in PF
* as a result of that discussion, BK in the AA errata were changed to what they are now (moving them out of the unarmed category, not mentioning unarmed strikes, still not calling out that monks should get unarmed strike damage with them, because not getting that is the default for any weapon)
* because the APG had already gone to the printer, that book still had different wording for BK (which, as far as I can tell, is the same in the 1st and 2nd APG printings, "[monks] an use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them").
* years later, Ultimate Equipment went into development
* knowing the change to BK in AA, I (the developer for the weapons section of UE) updated the BK text as per the years-old discussion with Jason, so the BK entry doesn't include the APG text allowing monks to use their unarmed damage with BK
* UE went to print, APG still has the old text, controversy ensues
Everyone assumes I hate monks and don't think monks should get their unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles. But I linked above a 2010 post where I said they should get their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles. And although I argue against unarmed+BK in later discussions, I also say things like "the monk needs a revision, not a bandage to fix its problems, and brass knuckles are a bandage, not a revision." Would allowing monks to use unarmed damage with BKs help monks become competitive? Yes. Is it the best solution? No, because the monk really needs a fix, not a patch-with-equipment.*
Looking back from today's perspective, and knowing that I'm much more liberal in my rule interpretations**, and perhaps influenced by my time playing World of Warcraft and seeing its monk class in action***, I think monks should get their unarmed damage with brass knuckles. And given the FAQ/errata to the core rules about monks being able to use a single weapon for all of their flurry attacks, there are other questions about BK that should be addressed (like if flaming on brass knuckles should add to your monk unarmed strike damage).
So perhaps the question isn't, "Hey, design team, can you post an official FAQ/errata about the conflicting brass knuckles rules text between APG and UE?," it's "Hey, design team, with errata changes to flurry of blows and using one body part for making a flurry, do you still want monks to not get their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles?"
But I don't know if the second question is something players are interested in.
And, in any case, I am no longer on the design team, so my opinion probably doesn't carry any weight in this.
* Even though we did it again with the bodywraps in Ultimate Equipment... ah, well.
** Even though that's not what you're used to seeing from me in many rules discussions about the FAQs, which come about as a group decision by the design team with lead designer Jason having the option of overruling SRM and SKR.
*** They can equip weapons, but when they make unarmed attacks the weapons aren't visible in the animations, and any special abilities the weapons have (like flaming) simply apply to their unarmed attacks. In other words, what weapon they have equipped is purely for stats, magic, and flavor; WOW monks are still as unarmed as they want to be, and as effective as a weapon-armed character.
|
The AoMF used to be 2.5x the cost, it was errata'd to 2x the cost.
Monks have only one unarmed strike which they are forced to attack with under the same rules that apply to manufactured weapons. If they got to make natural attacks counting each limb as a separate weapon they'd actually be doing pretty darn well and would be getting a great bargain from the AoMF just as many druids and other natural attack builds do.
A bargain for druids only if they stay shapechanged all the time. If they aren't shapechanged the amulet of AoMF do nothing for them. And if they want to get some natural armor from a item (so that they will get it for more than a few minutes) they will have to pay it 150% to add the power to a AoMF. That "bargain" has its drawbacks.
I'd argue that the Monk shouldn't have to give up any item slot other than the Weapon slot, just like every other class.
Except the druid that has to buy a amulet of Mighty fists and a weapon.
And the summoner that has to buy a AoMF for his eidolon and a weapon for himself and will be unamble to use the slot used by th eidolon.
@SKR
Quick note: The post link doesn't actually lead to a specific post, just to the start of the 650-post long AA debate thread.
I'll read and digest the rest of your post when I have a little more time :)
A bargain for druids only if they stay shapechanged all the time. If they aren't shapechanged the amulet of AoMF do nothing for them. And if they want to get some natural armor from a item (so that they will get it for more than a few minutes) they will have to pay it 150% to add the power to a AoMF. That "bargain" has its drawbacks.The AoMF used to be 2.5x the cost, it was errata'd to 2x the cost.
Monks have only one unarmed strike which they are forced to attack with under the same rules that apply to manufactured weapons. If they got to make natural attacks counting each limb as a separate weapon they'd actually be doing pretty darn well and would be getting a great bargain from the AoMF just as many druids and other natural attack builds do.
If not Druids (and honestly any Druid that focuses on Wildshape is going to be able to stay in it during most fights) then Alchemists and Barbarians. A natural attack build is guaranteed to have at least 3 for both of those classes, probably more with Helm of the Mammoth Lord or a White Haired Witch dip.
@SKR
Quick note: The post link doesn't actually lead to a specific post, just to the start of the 650-post long AA debate thread.
Fixed, thanks. :)
What's especially ironic (to me, at least) is the timeline goes like this:
* At the time Adventurer's Armory and the APG were being developed, I was the developer on the Player Companions line, and the sole developer of the AA
* back then, Jason was the only person on the design "team"
* the original brass knuckles that appeared the Adventurer's Armory didn't explicitly say whether a monk got his special unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles
* AA went to print
* Paizo needed additional equipment content for the APG, and decided to pick up a bunch of stuff from the AA
* the brass knuckles were one of the items they picked up for the APG
* AA lands in the hands of customers
* customers with AA started asking whether a monk could use his better unarmed damage with BK
* I said in this post, "Monks use their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles"
* someone (I honestly don't know who, could have been me, could have been someone else) made changes to the BK text for the APG, clarifying that "[monks] can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with [brass knuckles]"
* the APG went to print
* Jason and I had a discussion about BK in the AA; I'm sure that discussion included Jason being concerned about how monk unarmed strikes could kicks or elbows or whatever, and allowing monks to use BK with their increased monk damage, even when the attack might be from a body part other than the hands would be really strange (obviously this is long before the 2013 errata allowing monks to flurry with one body part instead of multiple ones)
* in that discussion, Jason either convinced me we shouldn't allow monks to get their increased unarmed damage with BK, or he decided that's how he wanted it to work in PF
* as a result of that discussion, BK in the AA errata were changed to what they are now (moving them out of the unarmed category, not mentioning unarmed strikes,...
Sean, I get that folks on these boards get pretty rough on you. I can understand why that makes you defensive. But not everyone who is critical (in the literary "criticism" sense) of you is out for blood or looking to disparage you. Here is a quote you may not be aware of:
Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
A bunch of people who frequent the rules forums are aware of this quote. And it falls well in line with the standards of approved rules for the organized play system. So that when people use
"well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.
It isn't an attack on you. You shouldn't take it personally. We have been asked by the development team to NOT use their personal quotes in rules debates.
I understand you may not have seen or known about Stephen's post (All irony aside, imagine that - someone who frequents the boards missing a one-off post from a developer :) ) but now that you are aware of it I hope you can look at people saying "SKR's post doesn't carry weight in this argument" and not equate it with "people are saying SKR is wrong/no good/out to get us."
We really are just trying to work out how to play the game consistently and seamlessly. We really are just trying to make our experience with your game as good as it can be. Take that as an extreme compliment. People are spending their spare time playing a game you made and when they aren't playing it they spend their spare time talking about it.
Edit: fixed link.
There is a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
And when I said, "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this," that wasn't my opinion, that was a designer's statement about how the design team plans to change the official rules of the game by using errata. I don't have control over print runs, or what we reprint, or when it gets reprinted, so I have no control over when that errata will appear in the next print run of the APG and its PDF, but you shouldn't dismiss anyone on the design team's board posts as "just an opinion" when they're telling you how they're going to update the official rule.
Perhaps an odd suggestion, but I'm going to run with your "WOW monks apply weapon stats to their unarmed strikes despite not wielding the staff" example - how would you feel about a item or weapon enhancement (let's call it a +1 equivalent) that allowed you to apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to a monk's unarmed strikes?
IE a monk could have a +2 flaming "transcendent" (or whatever) quarterstaff and as long as he carries it, he could treat his unarmed attacks as +2 and flaming.
Alternately something like a relatively cheap slotless "Pearl of Transcendence" that, when slotted into the grip or haft of a melee weapon, transfers the weapon's enhancements to the monk's unarmed strikes.
I prefer the second option since it means monks are much more free to utilize the random gear your typical AP delivers instead of hoping to find very specific equipment like AoMF or Bodywraps, and it doesn't "steal" a gear slot.
I realize this is an "equipment-patch", but I don't see a complete monk revision happening until the theoretical Pathfinder 2.0, so... Yeah.
While we're on the topic - you mentioned the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes as a "sneak fix" for the monk earlier. I outlined some of the drawbacks of the Bodywrap and I personally find it a little disappointing for monks here. Do you feel the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes is misunderstood?
There is a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
And when I said, "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this," that wasn't my opinion, that was a designer's statement about how the design team plans to change the official rules of the game by using errata. I don't have control over print runs, or what we reprint, or when it gets reprinted, so I have no control over when that errata will appear in the next print run of the APG and its PDF, but you shouldn't dismiss anyone on the design team's board posts as "just an opinion" when they're telling you how they're going to update the official rule.
That's a fair statement. But the next printing came and there was no change. I understand (now) that you don't have absolute control over print runs, but that is a very shaky ground to be on when you (generic) make a rules argument.
"Here look at this post by Developer XYZ, he says that this is how it works and they are going to change it in the next printing."
"Yeah, but that post was dated a few months before the next version went to press, and it still says the same thing."
"Well... the developer may not have had control of the print schedule... and ... uh, yeah."
Point being we have no way to know if you just changed your mind or if you weren't able to fix it in time, and we can't assume that the print is wrong by default if given those two choices.
Again, I agree that the tone toward you has been harsh, and times vitriolic. For whatever I have contributed to that I apologize. But people will continue to use your posts for insight into the rules. For many people it will be satisfactory. For some it won't be, and those people have a valid reason for seeking more concrete information. When it comes right down to it, a one-off post by SKR isn't the rule. The printed text and official FAQ/errata are the rules. This isn't an insult, I can't go down to my FLGS and pick up my very own SKR for $49.99 and bring him home and put him on my shelf. And for as thankful as you should be that is case, you should be equally understanding that some folks want more than your word.
Handwraps - after playing a monk in DDO handwraps just seem obvious - pluses are that it is a single weapon enchant - that applies to all monk unarmed attacks - downside is that a real TWF can get double the number of enchants, and swapping weapons is much quicker than changing wraps (which should be like swapping armor), end result is the ability for monks to get weapons that help them keep up with the rest of the martials without funky antics.
The fact that the monk gets 'two' weapon enchants for the price of one is offset by the 'but they are always the same enchant' portion - and with the flurry errata it doesn't make a difference really. Just let monks in your game get handwraps for the same price as an equivalently enchanted sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A piece of fabric wrapped around your hands you say....
Almost like, I don't know, the Rope Gauntlet....
There is a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
I don't see that it matters if it is one or the other.
Stephen's full post
No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
This serves a couple of purposes.
First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.
Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.
So if the dev posts "we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing" the appropriate response is "looking forward to it being fixed, but the rule hasn't changed until then"
The AoMF used to be 2.5x the cost, it was errata'd to 2x the cost.
Monks have only one unarmed strike which they are forced to attack with under the same rules that apply to manufactured weapons. If they got to make natural attacks counting each limb as a separate weapon they'd actually be doing pretty darn well and would be getting a great bargain from the AoMF just as many druids and other natural attack builds do.
A bargain for druids only if they stay shapechanged all the time. If they aren't shapechanged the amulet of AoMF do nothing for them. And if they want to get some natural armor from a item (so that they will get it for more than a few minutes) they will have to pay it 150% to add the power to a AoMF. That "bargain" has its drawbacks.
I'd argue that the Monk shouldn't have to give up any item slot other than the Weapon slot, just like every other class.Except the druid that has to buy a amulet of Mighty fists and a weapon.
And the summoner that has to buy a AoMF for his eidolon and a weapon for himself and will be unamble to use the slot used by th eidolon.
A Druid can be wild shaped 24 hours a day by 8th level.
A druid is one feat away from having their own unarmed strike to use in their non-wild shaped form if that's what floats their boat.
They also have, you know, full spell casting progression and have numerous options throughout the day to deal with enemies without need for a weapon. Or to mitigate the need to even have an AoMF or AoNA.
A piece of fabric wrapped around your hands you say....
Almost like, I don't know, the Rope Gauntlet....
There is a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
I don't see that it matters if it is one or the other.
Stephen's full post
So if the dev posts "we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing" the appropriate response is "looking forward to it being fixed, but the rule hasn't changed until then"No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
This serves a couple of purposes.
First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.
Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.
It matters because the rule has changed(in an actual book) and SKR gave you the intent, and most people want to know the intent. Now of course they are free to ignore it, but the information is nice to have.
And it was fixed in the UE book, just not the APG book.
Generally speaking the lastest printing of an ability takes precedence. In addition the primary source takes precedent.
What's especially ironic (to me, at least) is the timeline goes like this:
.........
No sarcasm or anything.
Thank you very much for posting this.I play a lot of home games, so how monks and weapons work is something we house rule. I don't have much a stake in this debate honestly. The reason I post in threads about this topic is because I hate seeing the devs defend these rulings so vehemently despite the fact that all the rulings do is nerf Monks when what they need is a buff.
I just wanted to see a dev, even a former dev, say they were wrong about the subject. Thank you for that.
Also I would like you to know that Inner Sea Gods is my favorite book from the Campaign setting book. I've always wanted a book with proper articles on all the major deities and it delivers on that. The PrC were actually good enough that taking them wouldn't diminish power for "flavor" like most PrCs. Only complaint were the multitude of bad feats, but I bought the book specifically for the lore articles, so it's nota big deal.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
snip
Please keep in mind that this post isn't in regards to the Brass Knuckle thing specifically, but rulings in general. I apologize for the long post but I feel it is necessary to fully flesh out my feelings on this matter.
I would have to agree with Samasboy1 in an "overall idea" kind of way on this. The intention of that post is rather clear. It's to allow for dialogue between developers and customers in an open and constructive manner as much as possible. If any postings such as those pointed out by Stephen (all design/dev team posts) start being taken as rules, then that foundation begins to erode because even if it may not apply to a moment, it paints the background that the team should not be questioned in regards to opinions and/or decisions made on this board.
After all, in the ensuing discussion during and afterwards, the team may actually decide to change their minds and go with something different than what they said their plan is in a forum post. If this were to happen there would be people using a rule (albeit until the errata/FAQ actually happens) where people are using the wrong rule. Then we have another category of people who see the post about "the plan" but don't actually have that source material. They would have no way of knowing that the change actually didn't happen and would start using a rule that never actually existed. This can also be applied to people who have the material but didn't look in the reprinted source to check if the change actually went through because they assumed the dev post was as good as law.
Don't get me wrong, I think people should absolutely place a lot of weight behind posts made by who are (or used to be part of) the team. I think it's phenomenal that players and devs have this much interaction and any reasonable player would see a post made by one of these people and go "I should really think about this".
We all have to keep in mind that a very important discussion is going on under the surface of this rules thread and spurned by another. It isn't really about people trying to delay having to follow rules because their character is (in the words of Chester Cheeto) dangerously cheesy in PFS, or any rulings how specific rules work. It is "what is reasonable and not reasonable for the average player to keep track of, and what is reasonable for a consumer of a product to assume upon purchasing that product"? I personally find it wholly unreasonable/unrealistic to expect a player to know about a post in some random thread from a team member that hasn't been given an official errata or FAQ. I hate to use the "pull on their heartstrings" card, but there is a very real 13 year old who spent a good portion of their hard-saved allowance money on a product that had to be told that their money might not have given them what they expected. All because people use obscure points buried in the internet that hasn't even been given official acknowledgment in a setting specifically made to be as standardized as possible.
However, it is not unreasonable for someone to know the contents of their book or at least not throw a fit if shown the (officially changed) product is a little out of date and that it's been put in a very obvious place to see. If it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect someone to know the rule, then there is absolutely no reason to rule it as such in PFS. If there hasn't been an official FAQ or errata made about the ruling then PFS GMs shouldn't enforce the rule in a "used to work this way, now it doesn't" scenario. A person buys a product with the expectation that it is correct with the exception of changes glaringly made through an official channel. Dev team posts on forums aren't (as given by the above quote if read in a fittingly-for-the-subject-matter RAW manner) and shouldn't be (reasons given throughout this post) considered official rulings until given through a true official channel in the form of an errata or officially published FAQ.
This also means, and I loathe to put more on the shoulders of the team at Paizo, that they have to keep very careful track of what things were meant to be official FAQs and what were meant as general conversation when said. And if they were meant to be FAQ/errata they need to be added as soon as possible because if general posts are not law then hot-fixes need to be put in place immediately for all to see.
Best Regards,
Aziraya
It matters because the rule has changed(in an actual book)
And it was fixed in the UE book, just not the APG book.
Generally speaking the lastest printing of an ability takes precedence. In addition the primary source takes precedent.
In which book did it no longer describe it as an unarmed strike? Because it is described that way in every source I can find, even the most recent.
So without Sean's post saying monks don't get their UAS damage with them, I don't see the argument against it.
It matters because the rule has changed(in an actual book)
And it was fixed in the UE book, just not the APG book.
Generally speaking the lastest printing of an ability takes precedence. In addition the primary source takes precedent.In which book did it no longer describe it as an unarmed strike? Because it is described that way in every source I can find, even the most recent.
So without Sean's post saying monks don't get their UAS damage with them, I don't see the argument against it.
There was a line specifically saying it used the monk's damage. That line was removed. Therefore the rule changed. The fact that the weapon has its own damage listed means you use that damage as the unarmed strike damage because unlike the previous version there is no language that allows the monk's fist to override the brass knuckles(a completely different weapon).
Basically the rule is there not because SKR made a post in the forums. The rule exist due to the writing being changed.
Now you may not think that is clear enough, but any poster's feeling on clarity has nothing to do with what the rule is.
There was a line specifically saying it used the monk's damage. That line was removed. Therefore the rule changed. The fact that the weapon has its own damage listed means you use that damage as the unarmed strike damage because unlike the previous version there is no language that allows the monk's fist to override the brass knuckles(a completely different weapon).Basically the rule is there not because SKR made a post in the forums. The rule exist due to the writing being changed.
Now you may not think that is clear enough, but any poster's feeling on clarity has nothing to do with what the rule is.
There was a line saying it is an unarmed strike. There is still a line saying it is an unarmed strike. Therefore the rule was not changed.
The fact that the damage is the same as an unarmed strike means it is a restatement that it is an unarmed strike.
The removal of the line specifically stating monks use their unarmed strike damage is a change without making a difference.
An unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. That is certainly clear enough.
There was a line specifically saying it used the monk's damage. That line was removed. Therefore the rule changed. The fact that the weapon has its own damage listed means you use that damage as the unarmed strike damage because unlike the previous version there is no language that allows the monk's fist to override the brass knuckles(a completely different weapon).Basically the rule is there not because SKR made a post in the forums. The rule exist due to the writing being changed.
Now you may not think that is clear enough, but any poster's feeling on clarity has nothing to do with what the rule is.
There was a line saying it is an unarmed strike. There is still a line saying it is an unarmed strike. Therefore the rule was not changed.
The fact that the damage is the same as an unarmed strike means it is a restatement that it is an unarmed strike.
The removal of the line specifically stating monks use their unarmed strike damage is a change without making a difference.
An unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. That is certainly clear enough.
Actually it referenced doing the "monk" unarmed strike damage before. You are mistaken. That line is now gone.
What Samas was saying was that even without that line the rules as written still allow unarmed strike damage from monks to apply to brass knuckles.
Read the Brass Knuckle entry and then read the unarmed strike part of the monk class.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What Samas was saying was that even without that line the rules as written still allow unarmed strike damage from monks to apply to brass knuckles.
Read the Brass Knuckle entry and then read the unarmed strike part of the monk class.
Welcome to table variance, because a line saying it is an unarmed strike doesn't allow (at my table using RAW) you to use Monk unarmed damage. You still use the dice of the weapon.
There ain't not table variance on this one man. It's no.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, without the SKR ruling, all ther sources still indicate that it is treated as Unarmed Strikes, which means that Monks higher damage does apply. It doesn't specifically call it out, but it doesn't have to. Its an Unarmed Strike that is counted as Lethal. Monks just happen to deal extra damage with Unarmed Strikes, regardless of if its a hand, foot, knee, etc. . .
Thats the RAW of how it works. RAI, (which is the SKR and Devs rulings part) says otherwise. Im not trying to argue one way or the other, just that by the book, even without it saying "Monks extra damage applies", it still works that way by RAW.
Actually, no, even without it, those items are still not listed as unarmed weapons in the most recent book. There classification, as denoted in the table, changed to reflect the intent that the Pathfinder Design Team wanted, so they are not unarmed weapons anymore.
The answer is: No. You cannot use your unarmed damage when making an armed attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence table variation. Id say that it not being listed as a category unarmed strike is a bit irrelevant, personally as the text (specific) should overrule the chart (general).
I agree that someone who was familiar with the game rules in general but who had not seen any entry for brass knuckles in any version of the game could nor seen any discussion nor developer comments online could read the most recent version in the most recent book (UE) and reasonably presume that brass knuckles would use monk unarmed damage.
Everyone here knows that this isn't correct, but the ambiguity (in the text) still exists. The weapon should not have the line that says "this weapon lets you deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike." That line doesn't add anything. If it were just a light weapon on the table you would expect it to deal lethal damage with the damage die listed. That line should be removed.
Actually it referenced doing the "monk" unarmed strike damage before. You are mistaken. That line is now gone.
No, you are mistaken. The line "These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike," is still very much there.
Attacking with Brass Knuckles, is therefore, an unarmed strike attack. Otherwise, this line is meaningless.
Obviously the line specifically reference monk unarmed damage was removed (I say that in my post that you quoted). But it's removal has no impact, since it still an unarmed strike.
Welcome to table variance, because a line saying it is an unarmed strike doesn't allow (at my table using RAW) you to use Monk unarmed damage. You still use the dice of the weapon.
Unarmed strike is listed with its own dice on the weapon. But the class feature modifies the dice listed.
Same with Brass Knuckles. It is an unarmed strike, so the class feature modifies the damage dice.
Actually, no, even without it, those items are still not listed as unarmed weapons in the most recent book
It isn't an Unarmed attack, because you are considered armed when attacking with it. Being considered Unarmed is not a defined weapon category, it is defined in the Combat section (an attack that doesn't threaten and draws AoO)
But the weapon says it modifies an Unarmed strike, the same thing modified by a monk.
Everyone here knows that this isn't correct, but the ambiguity (in the text) still exists.
I obviously don't agree that "everyone here knows that isn't correct."
I do agree that the core issue is that it says it modifies unarmed strikes. So, either that line means something, and using the weapon is simply a modification of an unarmed strike, or the weapon is is unrelated to unarmed strike and that line doesn't mean anything and shouldn't be there.
But since the line is in every version of the weapon, you can't just ignore it (until/unless it is later removed).
|
|
If it always used the wielder's regular unarmed attack damage, there would be no damage listed for the weapon. But as it does list damage, that is what you must use.
The line that was present in the older version of the weapon, but is now no longer there, was a specific exception to this that allowed a monk to use his own unarmed damage, rather than that listed for the weapon. As that line is no longer present, you use the weapon damage.
If it always used the wielder's regular unarmed attack damage, there would be no damage listed for the weapon. But as it does list damage, that is what you must use.The line that was present in the older version of the weapon, but is now no longer there, was a specific exception to this that allowed a monk to use his own unarmed damage, rather than that listed for the weapon. As that line is no longer present, you use the weapon damage.
I agree, and I believe the emphasis on the sentence left was on the last two words, meaning you can use this weapon with a flurry (of 1d3's) or to set off a held charge of a touch attack (or stunning fist), unlike a punching dagger or cestus.